re: On a scale of 1 to 10 how dangerous is the revisionist history attempt of Mitch Landrieu?

I don't believe any of this is "dangerous" at all. I think the problem is the slippery slope that could continue after this, like most of yall have been saying. What's Landrieu going to do next take down the Andrew Jackson statue? This whole thing is really dumb, and I think it could be the start to something worse. Landrieu just loves doing bull shite things like this to cover up the real problems in the city like crime, the school systems, or potholes in the streets.

quote:

---

Here's why: these statues are the first dominoes to fall. There's always more.

---

That's exactly right. What's next?

The removal of the statues aren't revisionistic, but they could lead to revisionism. It's possible that by the end of our lifetimes, history books will no longer outline the southern position as it relates to the Civil War.

These are the only three groups in history to destroy works of art. You nailed it.

quote:

---

I don't think the intent is to erase/revise history. Those are criticisms of emotion.

---

But that's exactly what they are doing. History requires two elements: a past event, and an interpreter. That interpreter could take many forms. It could be a writer, or a photographer, or... a sculptor, for example. When someone takes an event or person from the past and creates something on that theme, he is creating history. Now, a sculptor's work may not be as thorough or as well-explained as a writer, but in the act of choosing a subject and choosing how he is portrayed, he is creating a historical interpretation of that subject.

There is a difference between a statue of Lee in full uniform, with a sword, arms crossed, and a statue of Lee, defeated, hanging his head, sitting in a chair, for instance. That was a choice. That choice is interpretation of a historical event and a historical character. That is "history."

My criticism of this is not a criticism of emotion. The act of removing the statues is by definition removal of a historical work. Those who say that "history is being removed," are accurate. "Events" do not equal "history." "History" is creation, based on the past. There is a VERY big difference between the two concepts.

quote:

---

Perhaps the fact that the south lost the war, lost the historical PR campaign, and still got to put up statues honoring their losing leaders is the more unique thing in history.

---

I've always found this to be the more interesting aspect of the whole deal. Which is why, it seems odd to be making a snap judgment that they are somehow horribly offensive to our sensibilities 130 years after they were erected, having stood the whole time.

New Orleans is a wonderful unique place in large part due to its historical fabric. If people want to honor others, raise the money and build statutes to honor them. Hell, build them bigger and more prominent than these if you think they deserve greater honor.

Destroying the fabric of what has been here for over 100 years just seems petty and against everything the place supposedly stands for, however.

quote:

---

These are the only three groups in history to destroy works of art. You nailed it.

---

You're right, I apologize.

I forgot to include the Fascists in Italy/Hungary, or the Communists in China, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, Bolivia, or KJU in North Korea. Or just about any military dictatorship in Africa (lots to choose from).

I am sure I can think of more if you give me some time.

quote:

---

New Orleanians should not be satisfied with the removal of the four monuments, and instead push for a much more widespread clearance of monuments, street names, school names and other tributes to those tied to white supremacy, leaders of Take 'Em Down NOLA told a crowd of supporters during a Thursday night (March 23) meeting at Cafe Istanbul in the Marigny.

---

nola.com

It's only a matter of time I think.

1

He isn't changing text books in school. In 5 years everyone will forget about this statue removal shite.

Its stupid for sure, but its just optics for his constituents. There is no permanent damage being caused.

quote:

---

There is no permanent damage being caused.

---

Besides money being wasted and statues being torn down, right?

Lee and Beuregard, especially, but Davis, too, were celebrated in New Orleans, and it's not just that they were romanticized losers. Even their foes held them in high regard as being honorable. This idea is lost. The whole idea of honor, and doing one's duty is gone, it's all about me and my feelings in 2017, and has been this way for 50 years, now.

I'm guilty of it, too, I see no honor in my adversaries, most of the time. I believe the things I have chosen to hold to be right and good, and on certain issues I can at least cede some ground, but on others, they are, to me, literally life and death. But our forebears, while staunch in their views, were still able to recognize honestly-held beliefs. Our culture, especially the Lefter side of debate, but not only them, tend to think in absolutes (which aren't necessarily always wrong) and in soundbytes repeated ad nauseaum with little thinking involved. And today, that passes for policy and it's hard to find honor in "Take 'em down, now" or "No Human is Illegal" and so on.

I'm certain that those who disagree with me have just as many examples against me and those who hold similar values.